Irene Alexandraki1,2, Caridad A Hernandez3, Dario M Torre4, Katherine C Chretien5. 1. Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA. irene.alexandraki@med.fsu.edul. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, USA. irene.alexandraki@med.fsu.edul. 3. University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA. 4. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several decades of work have detailed the value and goals of interprofessional education (IPE) within the health professions, defining IPE competencies and best practices. In 2013, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) elevated IPE to a U.S. medical school accreditation standard. OBJECTIVE: To examine the status of IPE within internal medicine (IM) clerkships including perspectives, curricular content, barriers, and assessment a year after the LCME standard issuance. DESIGN: Anonymous online survey. PARTICIPANTS: IM clerkship directors from each of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine's 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools in 2014. METHODS: In 2014, a section on IPE (18 items) was included in the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey of its 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Items (18) assessed clerkship director (CD) perspectives, status of IPE curricula in IM clerkships, and barriers to IPE implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of free-text responses to one of the survey questions. KEY RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 78% (94/121). The majority (88%) agreed that IPE is important to the practice of IM, and 71% believed IPE should be part of the IM clerkship. Most (76%) CDs agreed there is need for faculty development programs in IPE; 27% had such a program at their institution. Lack of curricular time, scheduling conflicts, and lack of faculty trained in IPE were the most frequently cited barriers. Twenty-nine percent had formal IPE activities within their IM clerkships, and 38% were planning to make changes. Of those with formal IPE activities, over a third (37%) did not involve student assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Since LCME standard issuance, only a minority of IM clerkships have included formal IPE activities, with lectures as the predominant method. Opportunities exist for enhancing educational methods as well as IPE faculty development.
BACKGROUND: Several decades of work have detailed the value and goals of interprofessional education (IPE) within the health professions, defining IPE competencies and best practices. In 2013, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) elevated IPE to a U.S. medical school accreditation standard. OBJECTIVE: To examine the status of IPE within internal medicine (IM) clerkships including perspectives, curricular content, barriers, and assessment a year after the LCME standard issuance. DESIGN: Anonymous online survey. PARTICIPANTS: IM clerkship directors from each of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine's 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools in 2014. METHODS: In 2014, a section on IPE (18 items) was included in the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine annual survey of its 121 U.S. and Canadian member medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Items (18) assessed clerkship director (CD) perspectives, status of IPE curricula in IM clerkships, and barriers to IPE implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of free-text responses to one of the survey questions. KEY RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 78% (94/121). The majority (88%) agreed that IPE is important to the practice of IM, and 71% believed IPE should be part of the IM clerkship. Most (76%) CDs agreed there is need for faculty development programs in IPE; 27% had such a program at their institution. Lack of curricular time, scheduling conflicts, and lack of faculty trained in IPE were the most frequently cited barriers. Twenty-nine percent had formal IPE activities within their IM clerkships, and 38% were planning to make changes. Of those with formal IPE activities, over a third (37%) did not involve student assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Since LCME standard issuance, only a minority of IM clerkships have included formal IPE activities, with lectures as the predominant method. Opportunities exist for enhancing educational methods as well as IPE faculty development.
Entities:
Keywords:
interprofessional education; medical education; undergraduate medical education
Authors: Sheree J Aston; Wendy Rheault; Christine Arenson; Susan K Tappert; Judith Stoecker; Jordan Orzoff; Hayes Galitski; Susan Mackintosh Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Shauna M Buring; Alok Bhushan; Gayle Brazeau; Susan Conway; Laura Hansen; Sarah Westberg Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Kendall Ho; Sandra Jarvis-Selinger; Francine Borduas; Blye Frank; Pippa Hall; Richard Handfield-Jones; David F Hardwick; Jocelyn Lockyer; Doug Sinclair; Helen Novak Lauscher; Luke Ferdinands; Anna MacLeod; Marie-Anik Robitaille; Michel Rouleau Journal: Acad Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Angela Shogbon Nwaesei; Bobby C Jacob; Samuel K Peasah; Jonathan J Perkins; Matthew Hogan Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Abigale T Matulewicz; Sharon K Lanning; Kelly Lockeman; Laura M Frankart; Emily P Peron; Kacie Powers; Patricia W Slattum; Alan W Dow Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Susan A Glod; Irene Alexandraki; Harish Jasti; Cindy J Lai; Temple A Ratcliffe; Katherine Walsh; Michael Kisielewski; Jeffrey LaRochelle Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 5.128